The Shroud of Turin

My commentary on Shroud of Turin related matters. I am an Australian evangelical Christian in my 60s. I am persuaded by the evidence that the Shroud of Turin is the burial sheet of Jesus Christ and bears His crucified and resurrected image.

Notes:1. This post is copyright. Permission is granted to quote from any part of this post (but not the whole post), provided it includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date, and a hyperlink back to this post. [return]

■ In 1988 the Shroud of Turin was radiocarbon dated to 1260-1390 [#10(1) & #1]. Between May and August 1988[5], three radiocarbon dating laboratories at universities in Arizona, Zurich and Oxford, all using the same new Accelerator Mass spectrometry (AMS) method[6], radiocarbon dated samples that had been cut from the Shroud on 21 April 1988[7]. At a press conference in the British Museum, on 13 October 1988, following leaks that the Shroud had been dated "1350"[8], Prof. Edward Hall (Oxford), Dr Michael Tite (British Museum) and Dr Robert Hedges (Oxford) [Right[9]], announced that the Shroud's radiocarbon date was "1260-1390!"[10].

■ In 1989 Nature reported that the Shroud was "mediaeval ... 1260-1390." In February 1989 the scientific journal Nature reported:

"Very small samples from the Shroud of Turin have been dated by accelerator mass spectrometry in laboratories at Arizona, Oxford and Zurich ... The results provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390 ..."[11].

[Left (enlarge): The Hungarian Pray Codex[14] which has at least "eight telling correspondences" with the Shroud[15], yet is dated 1192-95[16], and so is least 65 years before 1260 and 160 years before 1355!]

the way back to the first century[17]. So strong is this evidence that even Prof. Christopher Bronk Ramsey, Director of the Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratory, and a signatory (as "C.R. Bronk") to the 1989 Nature paper, has admitted:

"There is a lot of other evidence that suggests ... that the Shroud is older than the radiocarbon dates allow ..." (my emphasis)[18].

■ The probability that the Shroud being 1st century has a radiocarbon date of 1260-1390 is "astronomical" [#10(2) & #1]. At the the above British Museum press conference, "those on the platform collectively insisted ... [that] the odds against ... were now `astronomical'" that the Shroud could be 1st century, yet have a "1260-1390" date[19]. This was confirmed by Prof. Harry Gove (1922-2009), the unofficial leader of the Shroud radiocarbon dating project[20], who pointed out that the statistical probability of the Shroud having a radiocarbon date between 1260 and 1390, yet it's actual date being first century, is "about one in a thousand trillion" (my emphasis)[21]. That is the equivalent of finding by chance, at the first attempt, a particular grain of sand, 1 mm in diameter[22] among a thousand trillion (1,000,000,000,000 = 1012) similar grains of sand, on the surface of a strip of beach ~5.4 metres wide by 145 kilometres [~90 miles] long[23]. Which is about the length of the Ninety Mile Beach in Victoria, Australia, only a part of which is shown right[24]. Therefore the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud as "1260-1390"[25] has effectively no chance of being correct, given that the Shroud is authentic (see above), and therefore first century. Indeed, Prof. Hall stated it was "totally impossible" (his emphasis) that the Shroud could have a radiocarbon date of 1260-1390, yet its actual date was "AD 100" or less[26].

■ Conventional explanations of the discrepancy all fail. [#10(2) & #1] Attempts by Shroud pro-authenticists to explain by conventional means the discrepancy between the Shroud being 1st century, yet its radiocarbon date is 1260-1390, all fail.

• Carbon contamination. All carbon contamination explanations of why the 1st century Shroud has a 1260-1390 radiocarbon date fail, because "79% of the shroud would have been composed of such carbon contamination," but this "is preposterous, as anyone viewing the shroud samples before they were cleaned can attest"[27]. In fact Arizona laboratory still has an undated part of its Shroud sample as it came from Turin, and it has "no evidence for either coatings or dyes, and only minor contaminants"[28]. See photomicrograph [Left (enlarge) and "Weave: Twill"] taken by pro-authenticist Barrie Schwortz in 2012, of Arizona laboratory's remaining undated part of its Shroud sample[29].

• Invisible reweaving repair with 16th century cotton. Similarly, Benford and Marino's invisible reweaving repair theory requires that the repair be "approximately 60 percent of the C-14 sample consisting of 16th century threads while approximately 40 percent were 1st century in origin"[30]. Oxford laboratory did find some old cotton threads in their sample, but they were only "two or three fibres"[31]. Prof. Hall estimated that it would require "65 per cent of the mass of the shroud ... to give a date of 1350 to a fabric originally dating from the time of Christ" but there was "less than 0.1 per cent" of such contamination in the Shroud (my emphasis)[32]. Benford and Marino claimed that the green colour of the Shroud sample area in the "Blue Quad Mosaic" photograph [Right (enlarge) [33]] supported their theory that the sample area was 60% 16th century cotton[34]. But as can be seen, the wrinkles in the Shroud near the radiocarbon dating sample area (see here) are the same green colour. And as Benford and Marino admitted, "it is possible that the Quad Mosaic's chemical-color signature ... may represent carbon" (my emphasis)[35]. But "carbon" includes all contamination with younger carbon, not only cotton. And since the wrinkles in the Shroud in the sample area are the same green colour, it is likely that both are the result of ordinary contamination by carbon-containing grime, sweat, oils, etc. Particularly since this corner is one of the most contaminated parts of the Shroud, it being one of the corners from which the cloth was held by "hundreds of sweaty hands" at Shroud expositions down through the centuries (#10(1))[36]. Benford and Marino concluded with another frank admission that, "it is impossible to quantify the amount of surface carbon, other contaminates, and/or intruded newer material in the radiocarbon sampling area based upon the Quad Mosaic" (my emphasis)[37]. Moreover, textile expert Mechthild Flury-Lemberg inspected the Shroud as part of its 2002 restoration[38] and she denies there is any evidence of reweaving[39].

• Neutron flux at Jesus' resurrection created new carbon 14. The neutron flux argument was first proposed by Harvard University physicist Thomas J. Phillips in the same issue of Nature which carried the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud paper[40]. Phillips pointed out that "If the shroud of Turin is in fact the burial cloth of Christ" then the resurrection of Jesus' dead body "may also have radiated neutrons" which could "have converted enough 13C to 14C to give an apparent carbon-dated age of 670 years"[41]. Oxford's Dr. Robert Hedges replied in the same issue, that it would be "an amazing coincidence that the neutron dose should be so exactly appropriate to give the most likely date on historical grounds" and that it "implies that the dose has been `fine-tuned' to better than one part in a hundred million" (my emphasis)[42] . Gove echoed Hedges' points and added his own "most devastating argument against Phillips' idea [which] was the fact that the samples were taken at just the right spot on the shroud to produce its historic date. A sample taken closer to the image would have produced an even more modern date-even a date into the future!" (my emphasis) [43]. This is the major flaw in the neutron flux argument: for it to convert the date of the first-century Shroud to not just any date, but to 1260-1390, the midpoint of which is 1325, which `just happens' to be ~30 years before the Shroud first appeared in undisputed history in Lirey, France, in c. 1355[44] would be a miracle. And a deceptive miracle by God at that!

■ Fraud is the only remaining viable explanation [#10(2) & #2]. Given that: 1) the Shroud is authentic, according to the overwhelming weight of the evidence (see above), and therefore first century; 2) the probability that the Shroud being first century, yet has a radiocarbon date of 1260-1390 is "astronomical", "about one in a thousand trillion," "totally impossible" (see above); and 3) conventional explanations of the discrepancy of how the first century Shroud can have a 1260-1390 century radiocarbon date all fail (see above); some form of fraud is the only remaining viable explanation:

"... when you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth ..."[45]

This is the flip-side of the assumption by the laboratories [Left (enlarge)[46]] that the Shroud must be a fake because the odds against it being first century and having a radiocarbon date of 1260-1390 is effectively impossible. Therefore, since the Shroud is authentic and for the above other reasons, it must be the radiocarbon date of 1260-1390 itself which was the fake[47], the result of scientific fraud! The question then is: "what kind of scientific fraud was it?"

■ Accusations of conventional fraud (sample-switching) fail. [#10(2) & #2]. Following the laboratories' report in the scientific journal Nature which claimed that "... the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390"[48], some Shroud pro-authenticists saw clearly that since the Shroud is authentic, then "it was the radiocarbon dating, not the Shroud, that must be the fraud"[49]. The foremost spokesman of this view was the French priest Brother Bruno Bonnet-Eymard [Right [50]], of the ultra-conservative "Catholic Counter-Reformation in the Twentieth [now 21st] Century"[51]. The target of Bonnet-Eymard's attack was that, although the cutting of samples from the Shroud on the 21st April 1988 was videotaped, the placing of the samples into their coded canisters was not[52]. Dr. Tite and the Archbishop of Turin, Cardinal Ballestrero (1913-98), took the samples into a private area, out of view of the others and the camera, and put the samples into numbered canisters which were then brought out and presented to the representatives of the three laboratories[53]. This was done to preserve the pretense of blind testing (the Shroud's distinctive weave was easily recognisable by the laboratories[54]). Bonnet-Eymard seized on this as `proof' that Tite had switched the samples, so that the samples which the laboratories thought were from the Shroud were actually from a medieval control sample, while those from a control sample of first-century date was in fact from the Shroud[55].

But Ian Wilson personally knew Dr. Tite and most of the radiocarbon dating laboratory leaders and he dismissed as "absurd and far-fetched as it is unworthy" accusations that "one or more of these men may have `rigged' the radiocarbon dating" by switching samples[56]. It is also highly unlikely that leaders of the radiocarbon dating project like Dr. Tite would commit major scientific fraud by switching control and Shroud samples, since they would have too much to lose if the fraud was discovered[57], as it would have been because of the Shroud's distinctive weave[58]. Besides, since Tite thought the Shroud was medieval[59] why would he switch samples to ensure the Shroud's radiocarbon date was medieval?

Nevertheless, agnostic pro-authenticist art historian Thomas de Wesselow considers fraud in the Shroud's radiocarbon dating to be a real possibility (albeit by conventional sample-swapping), because of the "1325 ± 65 years" date:

"The third possibility is that a fraud was perpetrated, that genuine Shroud samples were deliberately swapped with cloth of a later date ... Most sindonologists regard these fraud theories as plainly incredible. Some, like Ian Wilson, refuse to contemplate such `unworthy' accusations. However, scientific fraud is by no means unknown, as the editors of science journals are well aware. ... One important consideration weighs in favour of the possibility of deception. If the carbon-dating error was accidental, then it is a remarkable coincidence that the result tallies so well with the date always claimed by sceptics as the Shroud's historical debut. But if fraud was involved, then it wouldn't be a coincidence at all. Had anyone wished to discredit the Shroud, '1325 ± 65 years' is precisely the sort of date they would have looked to achieve" (my emphasis)[60].

Those like Bonnet-Eymard who claimed that there had been fraud in the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud had correctly reasoned that that since the Shroud is authentic, there had to have been fraud for the first century Shroud to `just happen' to date to shortly before 1355, when Bishop Pierre d'Arcis had claimed in his 1389 Memorandum that the Shroud had been painted 34 years before[61]. However, they all assumed that the fraud had to be by conventional sample-switching[62]. No one seems to have considered that there is another type of fraud that the fully computerised AMS radiocarbon dating process[63] was vulnerable to, and which was rife in the 1980s, namely computer hacking!

grew too large and so I split it off from now page "A-M." This topic index complements the date order "Index to this blog's posts." I will continue adding to these topic index pages in the background, working forwards from my first 30 June 2007 post, identifying topics and linking back to these index posts where those topics occur. This page is complete up to and including 04 Oct 10. When it becomes too long, I will further split it, and subsequent topic index posts, into "N-S," "T-Z," etc.

Herringbone. A herringbone weave has a v-shaped or chevron pattern formed by regularly reversing with offset the width-wise woof (or weft) thread as it is drawn through the lengthwise warp[4]. The result is a broken zigzag pattern which resembles the skeleton of a herring fish[5].

Twill. A twill weave has a pattern of diagonal parallel ribs (in contrast to a satin or plain weave)[6]. This is done by passing the weft thread over one or more warp threads and then under two or more warp threads and so on, with a step or offset between rows to create a diagonal pattern[7]

[Above[8]: Image side[9] of the undated and presumably not pre-treated Shroud sample, "split from one used in the radiocarbon dating study of 1988 at Arizona"[10] retained by Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory.]

[Above: Non-image side of the above Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory piece of its Shroud sample.]

Both show the Shroud's combined herringbone and twill weave (see next). Note that this sub-sample, which presumably is as it was cut from the Shroud in 1988, is obviously not 60% or more contaminated with non-original carbon, as required by all contamination with younger carbon theories, including a bioplastic coating and cotton from an invisible repair, thus refuting them. Except for sample-switching fraud (which is highly implausible) and the neutron flux theory which entails a deceptive miracle by God, this leaves my theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker [#10(1) & #1] as the only remaining viable explanation of how the 1st century Shroud had a 13th-14th century radiocarbon date. See "Conventional explanations of the discrepancy all fail."]

The Shroud's herringbone 3:1 twill weave was formed by passing each weft thread alternately under three warp threads and over one[11].[Above: The Shroud's complex herringbone three-to-one twill weave (a) compared to a plain weave (b)[12].]

Each successive weft thread begins at an ascending point in the warp one thread earlier[13], the direction being reversed at regular intervals by repeating the process at a descending point, thus producing the diagonal "herringbone" pattern[14].

The Shroud's weave was expensive and rare. Because of its complexity, the Shroud would have been an expensive[15], and therefore rare[16], fabric. Especially so in the first century when fine linen ranked in value with gold and silver[17]. No example of herringbone twill weave in linen from first or early centuries has been found, although examples of that weave have been found in silk[18] and wool[19]. There are no examples of herringbone twill weave from France up to and including fourteenth century[20]. There is in fact only one known example of a medieval herringbone twill linen weave fabric, a fourteenth century, a block-painted linen fragment with a 3:1 chevron twill weave, in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London[21].

[Above (enlarge): The only known example of a herringbone twill weave from the mediaeval period. The grey part is a reconstruction. Victoria and Albert Museum ref. no. 8615-1863[22].]

Further evidence of the extreme rarity of medieval linen cloths with a Shroud-like herringbone twill weave, was the fact that the then British Museum's Dr. Michael Tite was unable to find any medieval linen with a weave that resembled the Shroud's, to use as a blind control sample for the 1988 radiocarbon dating[23].

The Shroud's expensive weave is consistent with it being the linen shroud bought by the "rich man" Joseph of Arimathea in which to bury Jesus' body. The Gospels record that Joseph of Arimathea, a "rich man," bought a linen shroud and wrapped Jesus' body in it (Mt 27:57-60; Mk 15:43-46; Lk 23:50-53; Jn 19:38-42). The Shroud's expensive herringbone three-to-one twill weave is consistent with it having been that linen shroud bought by the rich man Joseph of Arimathea in which to wrap and bury Jesus' body[24].

Problem of the forgery theory. That the Shroud's weave is expensive and rare is another (see previous #3) problem for the forgery theory. The primary motive of art and archaeological (including relic) forgery is financial gain[23]. According to Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratory's Professor Edward Hall (1924-2001), that was the motive of the claimed forger of the Shroud, "There was a multi-million-pound business in making forgeries during the 14th century' so `Someone just got a bit of linen, faked it up and flogged [sold] it":

"Such total involvement got its reward especially in his [Hall's] participation in the dating of the Shroud of Turin in 1988 ... `There was a multi-million-pound business in making forgeries during the 14th century,' he bluntly told a British Museum press conference. `Someone just got a bit of linen, faked it up and flogged it.'"[24].

That the secular press shares Hall's view that the unknown, hypothetical, forger of the Shroud was motivated by money is evident in that it uncritically repeats Hall's uncritical assumption. And in a sense Hall was right! If the Shroud were a medieval forgery, then the forger, to maximise his profit, would have "just got a bit of linen." That is, he would have used the least expensive "bit of linen" he could find that would still deceive his prospective buyers (and that wouldn't require much-see #3). But the Shroud is not just any "bit of linen." As we have seen above the Shroud would have been expensive and rare in the first century. And it would have been even more expensive and rare in the 14th century, of which there is only one known other example, but in fragments as opposed to the ~4.4 x 1.1 metre Shroud. So the medieval forger would have been most unlikely to have obtained a fine linen herringbone twill sheet the size of the Shroud in the first place. And if the forger did have the opportunity to obtain the 8 x 2 cubit (see "#3: Dimensions") ancient Syrian or Palestinian fine linen sheet that the Shroud is, he would not have bought it for the very high price it would have been, as that would have severely reduced the profit margin on his planned forgery of the Shroud image upon it. This is yet another of the many problems of the forgery theory which I will collect through this series and present them all together under the topic, "Problems of the forgery theory."

[Above (enlarge): Shroud Scope photo with my 8 x 2 grid overlay showing that the Shroud divides evenly into 8 squares, each 437/8 = ~54.6 cm (~21.5 in.) x 111/8 = ~55.5 cm (~21.8 in.) [See below that the Shroud's true dimensions are 437 x 111 cms.] And as we shall see, the length of each square, ~54.6 cm. or ~21.5 in., is only 0.3 cm. or 0.1 in. less than the standard Assyrian cubit of ~54.9 cm or ~21.6 in. And the width of each square is only ~0.6 cm. or ~0.2 in. more than that Assyrian cubit. But the width of the Shroud has probably been increased slightly more than 2 cubits by the cutting and rejoining of the sidestrip.]

Ian Dickinson: 14 ft 3 in. x 3 ft 7 in. = ~8 x 2 cubits! In 1989, an expert in early Syriac, Ian Dickinson, of Canterbury, England, realised that these measurements of the Shroud were approximately 8 x 2 of the Assyrian standard cubit of between 21.4 and 21.6 inches, which was the common unit of lineal measurement in Jesus' day:

"Along these same lines has been a study of the shroud's dimensions as recently made by an expert in early Syriac, Ian Dickinson, from Canterbury, England[4]. Curious at the shroud's, by British units of measurement, anomalous 14 foot 3 inch by 3 foot 7 inch overall size, Dickinson wondered if these dimensions might make more sense if converted to the cubit measure as prevailing in Jesus's time. Establishing that the first-century Jewish cubit was most likely to the Assyrian standard, reliably calculated at between 21.4 and 21.6 inches, Dickinson found that if he chose the lower of these measures there was an astonishing correlation, accurate to the nearest half-inch:

Length of Turin shroud

14 feet 3 inches

8 cubits at 21.4 inches

14 feet 3 inches

Width of Turin shroud

3 feet 7 inches

2 cubits at 21.4 inches

3 feet 7 inches

Such conformity to an exact 8 by 2 Jewish cubits is yet another piece of knowledge difficult to imagine of any medieval forger. It also correlates perfectly with the `doubled in four' arrangement by which we hypothesized the shroud to have been once folded and mounted as the `holy face' of Edessa [see Tetradiplon and the Shroud of Turin], for the exposed facial area of this latter would have been an exact 1 by 2 Jewish cubits"[5].

be almost 21.5 inches, since refined by other archaeologists to be 21.6 ±0.2 inches[7]. According to page 67 of Petrie's book above, he himself accepted 21.60 inches as the mean length of the Assyrian cubit.

[Above: From left to right: Swiss textiles expert Mechthild Flury-Lemberg, Sister Maria Clara Antonini of the Poor Clare nuns and Don Giuseppe Ghiberti, Turin diocesan official in charge of the 1998 Shroud exposition, finish preparing the Turin Shroud on April 16 for display to the public on Sunday April 19, 1998[8].]

"The first speaker was Dr. Mechthild Flury-Lemberg, a former curator of the Abegg Foundation textile museum, Switzerland, whose theme was 'The Shroud fabric, its technical and archaeological characteristics'. It was Dr. Flury-Lemberg who, immediately prior to the 1998 exposition, had the task of preparing the Shroud for its display and housing in the new three ton Italgas container constructed for it, working side by side with Sister Maria Clara Antonini of the Poor Clares. Because the plate for the new container had been made slightly too small, Dr. Flury-Lemberg gained permission to remove the blue surround that had been sewed on in the 19th century. The intention behind this surround had been to save the Shroud from the repeated handling at the edges to which they had been subjected throughout the long centuries when it was the custom to hold it up before the populace. However, the surround had ever since prevented examination of the same edges, thereby hindering totally accurate calculation of its dimensions. Now the dimensions have been authoritatively determined by Dr. Flury-Lemberg as 437 cm long by 111 cm wide."[9]

And again, the Assyrian standard cubit was the international measure of commerce prevailing in Jesus's time, including among the Jews:

"So there were cubits for Temple use, and various other applications, but it is a particular cubit of the market place that is connected with the Shroud, the cubit that is known as the Assyrian cubit: the widely used, indeed, international standard of that time for merchants of the Near East, and had been so for centuries. This cubit of commerce was carried with the lingua communis, the language of trade and diplomacy that stretched from the Euphrates to the Mediterranean, the tongue that had become the common language of the Jew. Aramaic: the same language which Jesus spoke. Aramaic had been the communication medium of the Assyrian Empire and Israel had been a subject of Assyria."[10]

"During the 2002 restoration, various length measurements of the Shroud were taken by Karlheinz Dietz and Gian Maria Zaccone: 441.5 cm for the right length, and 442.5 cm for the left length. The bottom width is 113.0 cm and the top width is 113.7 cm. These values were reported in Sindone 2002, Mechthild Flury-Lemberg, 2003, editor ODPF [Opera Diocesana Preservazione Della Fede]... "[11]

[Above: As can be seen in the table above, when Dietz and Zaccone's separate right and left, top and bottom, dimensions of the Shroud are averaged, to the nearest centimetre, the Shroud's dimensions are still the equivalent of 8 x 2 (8.06 x 2.07) Assyrian cubits!]

Lemberg did, to the nearest centimetre, the Shroud still measures the equivalent of 8 x 2 Assyrian cubits!

Problem for the forgery theory. This is another (see #1) major problem for the medieval (or earlier) forgery theory since a medieval artist/forger would be most unlikely to know the length of the standard cubit of Jesus' day, as this was only discovered by archaeologists in the 19th century (see above). Although the Bible mentions cubits (e.g. Gn 6:15; Ex 25:10; Mt 6:27, etc) it does not say how long they were. For example, three of my pre-19th century Bible commentaries, written by very learned scholars, commenting on Genesis 6:15, the first mention of "cubit" in the Bible:

"And this is how you shall make it: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, its width fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits."

evidently didn't know that a standard cubit was 21.6 inches. Adam Clarke (c.1760-1832) thought that "the cubit [was] ... 18 inches ..."[12]. Matthew Poole (1624–1679) also thought a cubit was a "foot and a half"[13]. And John Calvin (1509–64) admitted, "But what was then the measure of the cubit I know not ..."[14].

And it is also unlikely that such a forger would bother trying to obtain a first century Syrian or Palestinian fine linen sheet of those dimensions, when his contemporaries would not appreciate his diligence and would be satisfied with far less:

"Also is it not rather incredible that this unknown individual [the medieval forger] should have gone to so much trouble and effort to deceive in an age in which, as twentieth-century journalists have reminded us, a large proportion of the populace would have been very easily duped by a feather of the Archangel Gabriel or a phial of the last breath of St Joseph?"[15]

And that is assuming that a medieval forger could obtain an 8 by 2 cubit first-century Syrian-Palestinian fine linen sheet, with a rare and expensive three-to-one herringbone twill weave which the Shroud is (see future "Weave"). As Ian Wilson, with typical English understatement, noted above:

"Such conformity to an exact 8 by 2 Jewish cubits is yet another piece of knowledge difficult to imagine of any medieval forger."[16]

And as Dr. Michael Clift, Acting Editor of the BSTS Newsletter also pointed out, the Palestinian (i.e. Assyrian) cubit "was not in general use in the fourteenth century" and while a side in one direction having an exact whole cubit measurement might be a coincidence, a side in the other direction also having an exact whole cubit measurement could not plausibly be:

"But let them not forget the cubit. As Ian Dickinson has shown us the Shroud measures exactly two by eight of the Palestinian cubit, which was not in general use in the fourteenth century. One might accept a coincidence if the whole number of cubits was in one direction, but surely not in both?"[17]

So even the dimensions of the Shroud are evidence beyond reasonable doubt of it's authenticity!

"`Were those the lips that spoke the Sermon on the Mount and the Parable of the Rich Fool?'; `Is this the Face that is to be my judge on the Last Day?'"[3].]

sub-index to topics under the heading "Introduction." Each topic will be a page containing item of evidence, under that topic heading. Each of those pages will be linked back to this sub-index and it in turn will be linked back to the Main index. See that Main index for more information about this series.

PS: I have just discovered that Google has its own url shortener which I will use from now on in place of TinyUrl. Apart from it being less likely that Google will go out of business than TinyUrl thus leaving my TinyUrl links non-operational, GoogleUrl includes a Google Analytics page showing where I have used each GoogleUrl. I only recently changed over to Google Analytics after SiteMeter started malfunctioning, and I am very happy with it.

Notes1. This post is copyright. Permission is granted to quote from any part of this post (but not the whole post), provided it includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date, and a link back to this post (if posted on the Internet). [return]2. "Shroud University - Exploring the Mystery Since 33 A.D.," Shroud of Turin Education Project, Inc., Peachtree City, GA. [return]3. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.189. [return]

My policies

Comments are moderated. Those I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. Except that comments under my latest post can be on any Shroud-related topic without being off-topic. I reserve the right to respond to any comment as a separate blog post.

Debates After over a decade (1994-2005) debating creation/ evolution/ design on Internet discussion groups, I concluded that Internet debates were largely a waste of time, so I ceased debating and started blogging. Therefore I normally allow only one comment per individual under each one of my posts.

Private messages I receive on Shroud of Turin related topics, I reserve the right to respond publicly via this blog, less the senders' personal identifying information.